In other countries hitting someone in a vehicle is considered assault regardless of the circumstances and is enforced as such.
I would condemn the driver, the one with the responsibility to drive a tonne of steel around safely, over the pedestrian being an nucence(?) on the road.
If the law is the other way around. The law needs to be changed.
I absolutely feel the drivers actions should be condemned, as it is surely illegal for him to do what he did. However the people blocking the road are also very likely doing something illegal as well.
The situation here is just like reddit. People are justifying one group doing something illegal, while condemning the other person.
Yes, one is much worse than the other, but the world isn’t black and white. People fail to understand that at the most basic level. Commiting a crime that ends in you getting hurt often times means you have no recorse.
What if the people that got hit, have no protection because they were blocking the road?
The guy goes to jail and they are SOL. Now, not only are they out of the protest to fight for basic human rights that we should all have, they are in the hospital, making no money, with even more bills stacking up, and potentially (it doesn’t seem like it in this case but it’s not impossible) looking at charges.
Justifying something that is deemed illegal is how laws change.
It is true that the world isn’t in black and white. But laws are and we must respond in kind.
If it isn’t justified, you should be able to come up with a rational argument against me, of which I’m amicable. The argument being about the driver having more responsibility.
To me, a person in a lesser position of control of a situation should be given more leeway in terms of outcomes. This is because with control comes responsibility and failure of that responsibility comes justice.
You would have to argue that the driver had less control over this situation.
I agree with your first point on how laws change. Why should we justify blocking traffic though?
The protest is about corporations giving people peanuts while the investors and C level employees take in millions. Not the ability to stand in the way of oncoming traffic. Those are two very different things.
The driver is absolutely responsible for his actions, but a group of people intentionally placing themselves in a road, be it entry/exit or just a main road are also partly responsible for their actions that led to their injuries. They know and understand what they are doing.
Hundreds or thousands of people walking out of these factories effectively stopping production speaks volumes, and definitely has an effect. Why tarnish that effect by acting irrationally and taking yourself out of the fight because you want to stand in the road?
This isn’t a single person with less control of a situation. This is a group of organized protesters trying to send a message, and knowingly obstructing traffic when the walk out itself is more effective.
I 100% support the UAW but I can’t openly justify either party doing what they did, the driver who is absolutely more responsible nor the protesters that were knowingly putting themselves in a position to get physically hurt. It does nothing aside from potentially hurt your message when you do that.
We are not going through a civil war, we are not at the point of people fighting with their lives (yet) over the necessity of basic survival. Both parties were wrong in this situation.
The difference is you’re actively trying to both sides it.
To me, there is a substantial difference in optics and consequence between hitting someone in a car and standing on a road.
The latter is barely worth talking about when the former is the topic of discussion, especially when the justification seems to be - they were in the way.
Depends on the law.
In other countries hitting someone in a vehicle is considered assault regardless of the circumstances and is enforced as such.
I would condemn the driver, the one with the responsibility to drive a tonne of steel around safely, over the pedestrian being an nucence(?) on the road.
If the law is the other way around. The law needs to be changed.
I absolutely feel the drivers actions should be condemned, as it is surely illegal for him to do what he did. However the people blocking the road are also very likely doing something illegal as well.
The situation here is just like reddit. People are justifying one group doing something illegal, while condemning the other person.
Yes, one is much worse than the other, but the world isn’t black and white. People fail to understand that at the most basic level. Commiting a crime that ends in you getting hurt often times means you have no recorse.
What if the people that got hit, have no protection because they were blocking the road?
The guy goes to jail and they are SOL. Now, not only are they out of the protest to fight for basic human rights that we should all have, they are in the hospital, making no money, with even more bills stacking up, and potentially (it doesn’t seem like it in this case but it’s not impossible) looking at charges.
Justifying something that is deemed illegal is how laws change.
It is true that the world isn’t in black and white. But laws are and we must respond in kind.
If it isn’t justified, you should be able to come up with a rational argument against me, of which I’m amicable. The argument being about the driver having more responsibility.
To me, a person in a lesser position of control of a situation should be given more leeway in terms of outcomes. This is because with control comes responsibility and failure of that responsibility comes justice.
You would have to argue that the driver had less control over this situation.
I agree with your first point on how laws change. Why should we justify blocking traffic though?
The protest is about corporations giving people peanuts while the investors and C level employees take in millions. Not the ability to stand in the way of oncoming traffic. Those are two very different things.
The driver is absolutely responsible for his actions, but a group of people intentionally placing themselves in a road, be it entry/exit or just a main road are also partly responsible for their actions that led to their injuries. They know and understand what they are doing.
Hundreds or thousands of people walking out of these factories effectively stopping production speaks volumes, and definitely has an effect. Why tarnish that effect by acting irrationally and taking yourself out of the fight because you want to stand in the road?
This isn’t a single person with less control of a situation. This is a group of organized protesters trying to send a message, and knowingly obstructing traffic when the walk out itself is more effective.
I 100% support the UAW but I can’t openly justify either party doing what they did, the driver who is absolutely more responsible nor the protesters that were knowingly putting themselves in a position to get physically hurt. It does nothing aside from potentially hurt your message when you do that.
We are not going through a civil war, we are not at the point of people fighting with their lives (yet) over the necessity of basic survival. Both parties were wrong in this situation.
It sounds like we agree on principle.
The difference is you’re actively trying to both sides it.
To me, there is a substantial difference in optics and consequence between hitting someone in a car and standing on a road.
The latter is barely worth talking about when the former is the topic of discussion, especially when the justification seems to be - they were in the way.